re: Tennis gambling is for the real degenerates

quote:

---

Not that it really matters, but Warinka lost so that win that he's due for against Federer will have to wait a little longer

---

If he's +800 the next time they play, you'd be wise to toss down on Stan the Man. If they play 7 more time, Stan is winning one, and that makes it a wise bet, and that was my point, and it was quite clear.

And then Flowers For Algernon guy rolled up on the scene, and started talking about dice.

Typical idiot degenerate, trying to talk yourself into believing that someone is "due".

And you're both stupid and thin-skinned.

I feel pity for you.

ETA: If you think a person has a chance to win based on matchup, then say that. But don't say someone is "due to win".

But it must really suck to be as miserable a person as you who can only resort to hurling puerile insults.

This thread delivered so much unintentional comedy that it bordered on performance art. Soph is right about the Gambler's Fallacy, of course. Prior events do not impact future events. You are never due, and sample sizes are so small that no, the numbers do not have to even out from what you would expect.

But to watch someone so entirely lose it and accuse someone of being stupid while they themselves are defending a logical fallacy is simply brilliant. Thank you, internet.

Tennis matches are independent events.

quote:

---

his thread delivered so much unintentional comedy that it bordered on performance art. Soph is right about the Gambler's Fallacy, of course. Prior events do not impact future events. You are never due, and sample sizes are so small that no, the numbers do not have to even out from what you would expect.

---

1) Soph is right in that he understands what the gambler's fallacy is
2) Soph is not right in thinking that that anything that I wrote comes even remotely close to touching upon the principles that might even be loosely analogized to those you elucidated above.
3) You are similarly not right.

I am a performer. And certainly an artist. This much I will concede.

My apparent miscue in this thread was using the word "due" instead of "primed for". The fact you and other imbeciles are either unable or unwilling to utilize this valuable tool known as "context" speaks to your resulting failures at posting and in life.

And let me assure you that ole BR21 didn't "lose it" and is in fact a touch xanax'd up. You see, I have this gift. I can write with various tones without being personally subjected to the emotions that those tones tend to convey. Some have argued that when it comes to tone chamaleonability, I am arguably even more prolific than your mother. But this is arguable.

What is not arguable is that the value to which I attached the listed odds of Wawrinka+800 was based on a line of reasoning which cannot be even tenuously* analogized to anything loosely** resembling the broadest reasonable construction of the term "gambler's fallacy".

Good day then.


__________________________
*Like the manner in which you grasp, and communicate via, the English language.

**Like the way your mother interprets standards of sexual prolificity.

quote:

---

Tennis matches are independent events.

---

You ever played tennis? Or any other one on one sport?

:Slowclap:

I'm pretty sure I'll beat you in tennis.

quote:

---

Tennis is a pussy sport

---

Yeah, those were the days.

quote:

---

I just want some BR21 football locks for Saturday

Is Sark due to beat Kiffen?

---

I'm on Louisville.

I also like New Mexico.

The PAC is a tough conference to predict this year. Exception: Oregon.

Will LSU be able to prevent the Cocks from getting substantial penetration.*

*Via their defensive line, of course. What did you think I was referring to?